CE, it might have helped if you read the article. There are multiple references to different types of federal and state laws. As to local "statutes", I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I think the biggest missing legal issue from the article was potential privacy claims by individual staffers over their salaries, but only those staffers who weren't public figures. And that would be their individual claim, not Heartland's.

The hilarious part about all this is Heartland's claim that revealing true information about it has damaged its reputation.

Useful article but again from a narrow perspective, that of contextual ethics as they specifically pertain to journalists.

Heartland's just one of a collection of organizations dedicated to promoting narrow interests in a measurably dangerous and even lethal way. Years ago WHO produced an estimate of 150K/annum excess human morbidity due to climate change, this number expected to grow steadily to the extent the problem remains unchecked. Heartland etc. are concentrated in activities ensuring this morbidity does grow, so they are quite arguably a roughly quantifiable dangerous nuisance to the public. We've seen a couple of decades of ineffectual response to the C02 threat, arguably mostly due to intentional efforts by the likes of Heartland. Our politicians are not protecting us from the risks imposed on us by Heartland etc., indeed no normally acceptable civil treatment has produced a significant check to their efforts.

There's a -reasonable- case here for lying. See Bok's "Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life" if you'd like to be able to talk about that from an informed perspective.

But let's not worry about the greater good. Let's instead concentrate on rumor mongering about the provenance of a memo.

I see virtually no chance that the email theft in the UK was legal although IANABritishL.

Even if the released emails should've been released based on FOI requests, that doesn't create a right to steal them (same holds true in America). And there's the several hundred thousand other stolen emails that haven't been released yet but were still stolen.

But since the emails proved the scientists were doing a pretty good job, that theft may not matter.

Amazingly enough it turns out there is actually a single token ethicist among the thirteen otherwise out-of-scope and locally inexpert members of AGU's ethics panel.

Wouldn't it nice to hear a detailed analysis of Gleick's behavior by that person? Unfortunately the AGU panicked and didn't bother with this step before bolting all wall-eyed out of the barn, but still it would be interesting to hear the perspective of the person duly enrolled by the AGU to allow them some actual deeply informed insight into ethics.

1) Re: "The hilarious part about all this is Heartland's claim that revealing true information about it has damaged its reputation."

I do not claim to know the specific law(s) appropriate here but those who control the making of the laws often (if not most often) see to it that their fraud and lying (not necessarily accurate legal terms) are beyond legal purview OR are actually protected.

Examples are 1) NO requirement that candidates' campaigns for office are bound to some level of truth and 2) the FOX Corp Florida supreme court case affirming that news reporting entities are similarly devoid of any standard of accuracy.

2) Re: Heartland's, and their ilk's responsibility for human morbidity due to climate change. While I'd agreed to their responsibility, given the tobacco industry "saga," I cannot expect any legal progress in this regard.

Besides the delightful "roosters of the apocalypse," one of the few real surprises for me in the 2012 documents was the fact that HI Was getting *more* tobacco money now than when I lost them ~2001 as the tobacco archives faded out. In 2011, that was $50K from Altria and $110K from Reynolds. Maybe the latter recalled Joseph Bast's ardent defense of Joe Camel. I hope everyone on HI's side is happy to be aliggned with accomplices to businesses that survive by addicting children.If people want to read a true horror story, I strongly recommend Robert Proctor's new book, Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.

The tobacco guys were pioneers of anti-science and the thintkanks got their training with them.

CE really doesn't know what CJR is? What a breathtaking scope of ignorance.

CE stands for the real backbone of the fossil fuel industry rubbish blizzard, obliviously volunteering to abase themselves no matter how ridiculous they may appear. Who needs to pay for a conspiracy when such as CE are ready to mindlessly walk their egos into a furnace of stupidity. For that matter who would consent to do such work if they were offered to be paid for it but had the mental faculties to realize what it entailed? Even working behind a nom de plume it would be difficult to consciously gag down such humiliation.

"Except for three examples of case law, with links pointing to histories which lead to relevant statutes."

Except the actual laws were never mentioned in any of those links and although indirectly related none of the 3 examples are like Gleicks.

The ABC one was close and guess what they were found guilty of "trespass amd committed fraud". Oops. Yes you are insane.

"CE's link to a wiki article about the entire US criminal code doesn't strike me as especially specific or relevant."

Oh I see Brian I am expected to dig through all the links in an article but you do not have to, lazy much?

Here Brian open my link, scroll half way down the page by using the scroll bar on the right, the wheel on your mouse or the down arrow key (more detailed instructions available upon request) and look for this.

"§1343 applies to fraud by wire, radio, or television."

Click on "fraud by wire" by depressing the left mouse button with your right index finger when the mouse pointer is over the phrase. You are using a hyperlink or link.

The above Federal Law is what Peter violated when he impersonated an HI board Memeber via email. The difficult part will proving damage to HI however if the individual who was impersonated wants to press charges...

Glad I could hold your hands this morning. It always seems you have different rules for different people. I HAVE to click multiple layers of links others do not is just the latest example.

I clicked all your links and still did not find any relevant laws or discussion of them as it pertains to THIS case.

I can see why you just accept whatever a "scientist" says as fact, you do not posess critical thinking skills OR you purposely choose not to use them.

And finally to John Mashey,

Yes Al Gore from the 80's and 90's you were around then and I am sure you were pointing out to Mr. Gore how many children whose death he was responsible for.

Make it easy and retract your statement of whoever supports HI has children blood on their hands via donations from tobacco companies. Or be consistent and apply that rule to everyone and everything. I am not holding my breath. Consistency is no longer found on RR.

Depends on the US attorney, at the Federal Level it looks like they would probably pass as it is:"Prosecutions of fraud ordinarily should not be undertaken if the scheme employed consists of some isolated transactions between individuals, involving minor loss to the victims, in which case the parties should be left to settle their differences by civil or criminal litigation in the state courts."

Small potatoes. So although the elements of wire fraud are met the Federal will most likely defer to the State in this case.

At the state level, my prior link had to do with theft of propoerty in CA. It seems Peter may have more trouble with this code:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/528.5.html

Peter broke the laws at the state and Federal levels. The question remains whether or no he will be prosecuted.

See dbostrom this is why I do not appeal to authority and get all "wowed" by "Columbia Journalism Review". It hinders your ability to learn new things, go discover and research.

I never restricted to potential charges or that he only committed fraud, that is all you.

I am not the one moving goal posts. Get up, walk down the hall and enter your bathroom, turn on the light and look directly into the mirror.

Trouble understanding this from 528.5?

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any personwho knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates anotheractual person through or on an Internet Web site or by otherelectronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening,or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishablepursuant to subdivision (d).

Hmm nothing about fraud. Let me read my first post stating I wanted to see Gleick go to jail.

"Peter Gleick should go to jail At the very least I hoipe he is prosecuted, but in political things you never know."

Yeah "alleged", with an admission. HI has validated the documents and even went into great detail about what was "real" (copied&pasted) in the fake memo and what was written by whomever created that fake document.

I know I know since they accept money from tobacco companies they are most certainly lying and just want to hurt more children.

Still have not seen Mashey report how the Red Cross is not thinking of the children because they are associated with a tobacco company by accepting their money.

"In 2011, that was $50K from Altria and $110K from Reynolds. Maybe the latter recalled Joseph Bast's ardent defense of Joe Camel. I hope everyone on HI's side is happy to be aliggned with accomplices to businesses that survive by addicting children."

The above would equally aplly to any institution that accepted money from tobacco companies, if you want to be consistent.

Let's see Rabetts do not care about the actual texts of the laws, they do not care when the Masheys of the world make stupid outrageous statements, they just want the team to look good. Well, you all are making your side like pretty darn inconsistent and looney.

CE, you have reached the lowest circle of blog commenters, which I name "crashing bore agendaist snarker."

The rest of you should leave him/her alone, and he/she would shut up.

Analysis of the "forgery" showed it most closely resembled the style of - wait for it - Joseph Bast. Probably an earlier draft or one of his minions. Secretaries often write these things, and s/he, far from overpaid, may have gotten tired of the nastiness and mailed it out. Likely, I'd think.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.